Why you should toss your copy of "Howl"

Image from NAMBLA's website, Ginsberg has his own special section.

Allen Ginsberg, his poetry is loved by every 18-25 year old in the world, but why? Because “it spoke for a generation, man” Get with the fucking program.

It’s like the whole thing with Kerouac’s On the Road, reading it was supposed to make me perceive life differently or something equally ridiculous. All the book it did was bore me to tears with its redundant pretentious dude-centric ramblings.

Of course, in high school, or in the early days of college to even suggest the book is not the greatest piece of literature on earth will get you looks of disgust. Same goes for Ginsberg, and his most loved work “Howl”

I don’t buy it.

I really don’t and I wouldn’t buy it.

At first the dislike I had was of his work, just was not my thing. I thought it was pretentious, dull and self-satisfying. The works of Ginsberg is basically reading the work of a hedonistic, privileged libertarian dude with no real grasp on any radical political position. My issue with Ginsberg is beyond his writing, I have a big beef with him as he supports an ‘organization’ that promotes raping children.

Well, you all know NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association ? You have most likely heard of it if you have watched South Park before.

I thought it was fake at first…I couldn’t believe it could exist. I was even more shocked when I found out that Ginsberg thought they were a decent group of people.

NAMBLA tries to be a recognized and legitimate organization. Now, this piece (which used to be a video I made on my old Youtube account) isn’t just about Ginsberg, it looks children, porn and sex - Exploitation.

Ginsberg made a point of speaking out for NAMBLA. Let me just quote a bit from his speech,

“Time magazine, following the FBI disinformation campaign, attacked NAMBLA as a group involved in the "systematic exploitation of the weak and immature by the powerful and disturbed." That struck me as a fitting description of Time magazine itself. NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defence of free speech.”

First of all, NAMBLA does not care about children – why? Because children shouldn’t be raped by pedophiles, pedophiles should not pretend that 8 year old boys consent to being raped. That’s not free speech. That’s pedophilia, exploitation and abuse. Any decent person that cares about children’s rights over some dude’s apparent ‘right to free speech’ would be able to understand the difference.

This is so obvious for dudes like Ginsberg, free speech is paramount in their apparent oppression. Free speech, again, for who?

Ginsberg says, Youthful sexuality.

Seriously? Someone is actually assuming that children are somehow the same sexually as adults are, that they actually have the capacity to understand sex (especially sex with an old man) and fully consent to it like an adult?

I don’t think so.

Children are protected under the law for a reason. They are protected because they do not have the same capacity to consent. They are not able to make the same choices as an adults, especially those regarding intercourse with a forty-something year old man. To assume that someone actually has the right to take the still developing, prepubescent child and declare them ‘sexually prepared’ is ludicrous. To make speeches that encourage exploiting children is just sheer bullshit. If these dudes have read anything on childhood development they would know a thing or two about how the child’s brain develops and how their decision making abilities develop, too. They did not just throw the age of consent out there to oppress little kids from having sex with old men. This, like pornography, has nothing to do with free speech.

Ginsberg of course, thought anything that involved men having sex was a right of men, a freedom of speech. He was clearly for freedom, was he not? I guess we should become antagonistic towards efforts to protecting children, in order to protect pedophiles, who are obviously oppressed.

To even suggest that child-abusers are some oppressed group puts you on my shit list for life. As most liberals and libertarians do, Ginsberg goes on spouting off about ancient sculptures of naked children, as a way to justify NAMBLA’s existence. Dudes often turn to history to try and defend their views, pornographers and pimps tell us that Neanderthals drew naked women, so porn is legit. This idea that if something existed a long time ago, it is totally okay and society should embrace it.

This is what Ginsberg said,

“Most people like myself do not make carnal love to hairless boys and girls. Yet such erotic inclinations or fantasies are average”

Pedophiles are the ones who fantasise about having intercourse with children. You support a group and advocate for them to try and have some sort of legal ability to sexually abuse children. You believe you have some innate right to children’s bodies because of erotic inclinations. Sorry, Allen, this shit does not fly.

He continues in his speech,

“It is NAMBLA's mission to raise the subject, explore it, and provide a platform of debate.”

So he claims he doesn’t support raping children yet he supports a group that wants to rape children legally? Right. He goes on to say that police tie child pornography with violence (ya think?) and says that police will go snooping in people’s homes and “invading their privacy” because you know, the child who is being exploited on video for the sick pleasure of pedophiles isn’t having his or her privacy invaded.

This really speaks about the mentality of many liberal white dudes; this idea that the individuals’ satisfaction is a primary concern, whoever gets exploited on the way isn’t even a thought.

Ginsberg continues, “Often police intrusion into consensual intergenerational affections and affairs results in abuse of both parties.” Intergenerational? You mean underage children without capacity to make decisions about sexual relationships with older men? Nice attempt at science’ing up “pedophilia” with “intergenerational affections”

Also, the police intrude? I think the pedophiles intrude. Pedophiles and rapists intrude the space of others to satisfy their own selfish desires. How dare he even suggest that this type of relationship is not in anyway morbid? How can you even suggest that a child has the ability to fully consent to dominating older males?

It doesn’t end there, In Andrea Dworkin’s book Heartbreak, keep in mind this is important as Ginsberg and Dworkin used to be friends. Here is Andrea’s take,

"I take this from what Allen said directly to me, not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage boys” (Dworkin 45). This is due to not only his proclamation at their godchild’s bar mitzvah that the friends of his godson “were old enough to fuck. They were twelve and thirteen. Ginsberg said that all sex was good, including forced sex,” his writings include passages such as: “Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they’ll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape” (46, Ginsberg 108)".

that’s right from ginsberg himself, not some insane feminist scheme that I am pulling out of my ass, okay?

Her piece on Ginsberg was honest and real. This is what Ginsberg was about, his ‘freedom’ to fuck whoever he wanted, consensual or not. His idea of “taking down the establishment” is about is unique as Reagan’s approach to politics. So when some snooty literary dude raves about how brilliant and transgressive Ginsberg is, remind him of this post.